(Note. In 1993 the Town’s Board of Selectmen and employee unions approved the adoption of Chapter 32B, Section 19 of the M.G.L., also known as Coalition Bargaining for Health Insurance. Under this law the Town established a Public Employee Bargaining Committee (the "Committee") comprised of representatives of all the Town’s bargaining units and retirees. This law provides that no substantive changes may be made to the terms of the Town’s health insurance coverage without a 70% positive vote of the Committee. The Town currently pays 90% of most employees’ health insurance premiums and although the Town’s management has asked, the committee has refused to agree to any meaningful, allowable changes. Under this law there is virtually no incentive for the Committee to agree to any changes. If the Committee does not agree to any changes, the terms of the existing coverage continue indefinitely. In effect, the Town is locked into the current terms of coverage, which are among the most generous in the state. Revocation of the Town’s acceptance of this law would require approval from both the Board of Selectmen and the Committee.

Question 2: The Town should vigorously support and implement benchmarking as a management tool to help assure Framingham’s taxpayers that our tax dollars are being spent cost-effectively. (The Financial Task Force recommended the implementation of benchmarking in 1998 and Town Meeting overwhelmingly approved a resolution in the spring of 2002 calling for the implementation of benchmarking.)

Question 3: The Town should adopt a new bylaw concerning trash collection fees. This bylaw (which appeared as Article 12 in the warrant for the October 2003 Special Town Meeting) states that: "In any year, the total tax levy plus all budgeted revenues from trash collection fees shall not exceed the amount the total tax levy would have equaled if a trash collection fee had not been implemented." The essence of this bylaw is to keep any trash collection fees for normal household trash within the bounds of Propositon 2 1/2.

Question 4: The criteria for determining general wage and salary increases should include what is needed to keep pace with inflation, how much is needed to maintain competitive levels of compensation, and what is sustainable in an inherently cyclical economy. (This position is more fully explained in the position paper posted on our website.)

Question 5: The policy of developing and maintaining long-range financial forecasts should be adhered to, beginning with the current budget cycle.

Question 6: The Town should not employ an override to balance the budget for fiscal year 2005.

Question 2: This will not be effective in reducing costs. It's too easy to punch holes in benchmarking.

Question 3: If voted in, the trash fee will only be the first fee.

Question 6: Given past financial behavior no operational override should be passed for 5 years.

(Note. In 1993 the Town’s Board of Selectmen and employee unions approved the adoption of Chapter 32B, Section 19 of the M.G.L., also known as Coalition Bargaining for Health Insurance. Under this law the Town established a Public Employee Bargaining Committee (the "Committee") comprised of representatives of all the Town’s bargaining units and retirees. This law provides that no substantive changes may be made to the terms of the Town’s health insurance coverage without a 70% positive vote of the Committee. The Town currently pays 90% of most employees’ health insurance premiums and although the Town’s management has asked, the committee has refused to agree to any meaningful, allowable changes. Under this law there is virtually no incentive for the Committee to agree to any changes. If the Committee does not agree to any changes, the terms of the existing coverage continue indefinitely. In effect, the Town is locked into the current terms of coverage, which are among the most generous in the state. Revocation of the Town’s acceptance of this law would require approval from both the Board of Selectmen and the Committee.

Question 2: The Town should vigorously support and implement benchmarking as a management tool to help assure Framingham’s taxpayers that our tax dollars are being spent cost-effectively. (The Financial Task Force recommended the implementation of benchmarking in 1998 and Town Meeting overwhelmingly approved a resolution in the spring of 2002 calling for the implementation of benchmarking.)

Question 3: The criteria for determining general wage and salary increases should include what is needed to keep pace with inflation, how much is needed to maintain competitive levels of compensation, and what is sustainable in an inherently cyclical economy. (This position is more fully explained in the position paper posted on our website.)

Question 4: The policy of developing and maintaining long-range financial forecasts should be adhered to, beginning with the current budget cycle.

Question 5: The Town should not employ an override to balance the budget for fiscal year 2005.

Question 3: To attract quality teachers, we need to offer competitive wages; to keep quality teachers, we need to offer a competitive salary increase structure.

Question 4: We must be cognizant that there are variables, I would consider being supportive of biennial budgets on the state level.

Question 5: An override may not be necessary for FY 05, nor would be likely to pass. However, I think it is fiscally irresponsible to take an option off the table

Question 5: I pledge NO OVERRIDES.

Question 3: Part 3 of this statement may contradict parts 1 and 2. NOTHING is sustainable with the current low priority given to cities and towns by the state.

Question 4: We must realize that the big variable is the state, and it is not forecastable.

Question 5: An override does not seem necessary this year.

Question 2: The Town should vigorously support and implement benchmarking as a management tool to help assure Framingham’s taxpayers that our tax dollars are being spent cost-effectively. (The Financial Task Force recommended the implementation of benchmarking in 1998 and Town Meeting overwhelmingly approved a resolution in the spring of 2002 calling for the implementation of benchmarking.)

Question 3: The Town should adopt a new bylaw concerning trash collection fees. This bylaw (which appeared as Article 12 in the warrant for the October 2003 Special Town Meeting) states that: "In any year, the total tax levy plus all budgeted revenues from trash collection fees shall not exceed the amount the total tax levy would have equaled if a trash collection fee had not been implemented." The essence of this bylaw is to keep any trash collection fees for normal household trash within the bounds of Propositon 2 1/2.

Question 4: The Town should not employ an override to balance the budget for fiscal year 2005.

Question 2: Should be vigorously followed up since GK will claim he can have a level fund budget this year and thus delay any effort to finally resolve the health care abuse.

Question 2: It is amazing that we even need this kind do thing. Shouldn't our town officials be able to figure out how to do this on their own?

Question 3: Trash fees are the same as raised taxes.

Question 4: I feel that overrides are a bad tactic that the town uses to help them out of mismanagement of funds.

Question 3: While I agree in general, this would not permit Incentive Based Recycling, and it could end up giving a higher tax break to large Framingham corporations (who do not have trash collected by the Town) than to homeowners.

Question 2: I can only answer this question if I know the cost of implementation. Question is too broad to answer but in theory I agree. So, I have no answer.

Question 3: I agree!!

Question 4: I agree!!